Neuroimage Evidence and the Insanity Defense
Behavioral Sciences and the Law
Behav. Sci. Law 29: 592–607 (2011)
Published online 10 July 2011
Abstract: The introduction of neuroscientific evidence in criminal trials has given rise to fears
that neuroimagery presented by an expert witness might inordinately influence jurors’
evaluations of the defendant. In this experiment, a diverse sample of 1,170 community
members from throughout the U.S. evaluated a written mock trial in which
psychological, neuropsychological, neuroscientific, and neuroimage-based expert
evidence was presented in support of a not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI)
defense. No evidence of an independent influence of neuroimagery was found. Overall,
neuroscience-based evidence was found to be more persuasive than psychological and
anecdotal family history evidence. These effects were consistent across different
insanity standards. Despite the non-influence of neuroimagery, however, jurors who
were not provided with a neuroimage indicated that they believed neuroimagery would
have been the most helpful kind of evidence in their evaluations of the defendant.
Comments